Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)

Citation: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Parent Document: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2009-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2267097/bisno-v-douglas-emmett-realty-f... ↗

Full Text

1,028 chars

Sherwood wrote that before seeking a rent increase under that act, Emmett consulted with Mordoh. “They did not recite the facts of Mr. Bisno’s tenancy—they provided him with the decision of the Hearing Examiner [from the rent control hearing]. Based on his review of the Hearing Examiner’s decision, Mr. [Mordoh] concluded that the subject rent increase was authorized under Costa[-]Hawkins, and that the underlying unlawful detainer action should be filed if Mr. Bisno failed to pay the increased rent.” From this Bisno asserts an inference can be drawn that Mordoh saw no other documents before offering his legal advice. We disagree. At his deposition, Sherwood explained that he meant that the facts which underlay the Costa-Hawkins rent increase and subsequent unlawful detainer action were the same as those recited in the hearing officer’s Board decision. When viewed in context, we conclude that Sherwood’s statement does not raise an inference that the hearing officer’s report was the only document Mordoh reviewed. 11

Other Sections in This Document (132)

Full Text